Transwoman BFs baby for 6 weeks

[goodyzoe]

No mention of the actual mother. Given the well documented narcisistic tendencies of many transwomen are mothers going to be bullied out of BFing now so transwomen can use babies to validate their delusions.

And what of the baby's health - the drugs used to stimulate milk in the trans woman come through in the milk - what is the effect of this?

We know milk is not just food but medicine. Even if a trans woman van produce milk with drugs to stimulate it - is their body working with the baby's to support their immune system like it would from the mother?

How fucking selfish do you have to be, to experiment on a baby like this.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.romper.com/p/a-transgender-woman-has-exclusively-breastfed-her-baby-its-a-dream-come-true-8146751/amp

Quite frankly there aren't enough swear words in the world to cover how I feel about this.

I know! I'm sitting here, going shitfuckpisswankcuntbollocks and it's not even close to being cathartic.

I might even spontaneously combust.

I’m utterly shocked that this was allowed

This is interesting. We use domperidone here in the UK for mothers of premature babies who need to increase their lactation. It's very common. Usually 20mg 4 times per day.

I'm not saying I'm in agreement with this experiment, though.

Totally inappropriate - i wouldnt have thought even with domperidone that a man wouldnt have the milk ducts to produce an adequate milk supply anyway.

Just for balance though - domperidone is prescribed for use by some neonatal units in the uk as well as gps - i used it myself recently when struggling with milk supply. However it is not liscenced for this purpose - it is a side effect so it is only prescribed with caution

That's at least something to know that there is some basis for concluding that the domperidon is not necessarily harmful to the baby, and there's at least some precedent. But - were the doses comparable? Because I take estradiol, and the doses talked about for that in the article were huge - way, way more than a woman would take. The patient in the article took 12 mg twice per day. For menopause, I take 1.5mg once a day. That's 16 times the dose a woman would take!

That can't have been good for the baby. What effects might that have on their health further down the line?

Also, my usual note here on "HRT" for trans women. It's not HRT. You're not replacing anything. You have HT, hormonal therapy.

How is it ethical to experiment like this with a baby?

The article talks about the benefits of breastfeeding for the mother and baby. But is there any evidence that these apply to trans identified males who induce lactation?

I wonder what the response would be to a non-trans man who wanted breastfeed a baby? Would that be considered as a reasonable thing, I wonder?

There is nothing about this that puts the baby involved first.

One of the benefits to woman is reduced risks of reproductive cancers. This shit is bullshit

Ffs just hit a new peak.

YY Sophocles.

It is a fucking disgrace.

Well it proves that if you give a man the right drugs he can breastfeed.

But I think that was known already (cba to google it). I think there are some endocrine disorders that cause men to grow breast tissue and lactate.

The question is what’s in it for the baby?

There are some really wierd comments in that article - the fact that certain surgeries aren’t a prerequisite for success under the Reisman/Goldstein method means the technique could have a wide application if their results can be replicated

Why would breast augmentation or vaginoplasty be required anyway?

And there's so much focus on the transwoman, and so little on the infant! What about colostrum? What about the changing makeup of breastmilk as the child grows, do men have the same feedback mechanisms around that? Why does it seem that the baby was so little considered at all? How can it have been ethical to do this - to risk dosing the child with so much purely so the transwoman can have the experience - what was the benefit to the child in all of this?

For me, this firmly falls into the 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should' camp.

One mention of the mother in the entire article.

Also this is highly disingenuous

"Moreover, the benefits of breastfeeding to both parent and child, from lower rates of breast cancer in women who breastfeed, to a stronger infant immune system, and stronger parent-child bonding, have been well documented. While every mother may not choose to breastfeed, there’s much to be said for making sure those who want to are physically able to do so."

People reading that without the context would not assume they were talking about men.

Same with artificial wombs. When they never mention where they're going to get all these wombs from.

Presumably the same place that lots of gay men go to find cheap desperate surrogates / who are often told to do it by their husbands.

Basically men must have whatever they want.

When we can grow babies in bags it's game over for women I fear.

Which sounds extreme but look at our position in most of the world, look at the laws surrounding us and reproduction.

I mean loads of men don't like women / don't see us as people / we're just baby carriers and houseworkers and for fucking.

Babies in bags + robots (or low staus men) for housework and sex and what do they need us for.

Ah man that is disgusting. If he's capable of being the biological father of a child he's not the mother, end of. Doctors and social services should be intervening.

Bloody hell! I can't believe what I just read. Poor baby. Poor mother.

Is the baby going to be followed up by medical staff? If it is male won't the anti-testosterone that the feeder is taking affect the child's development?

This is interesting. We use domperidone here in the UK for mothers of premature babies who need to increase their lactation. It's very common. Usually 20mg 4 times per day.

It was prescribed to me in Australia by my GP (who was also one of the country's leading lactation specialists. I am 100% woman

Domperidone is generally prescribed for motion sickness, and when I expressed surprise and said my DH suffered from motion sickness, it was explained to me that in male patients it could also cause breast tissue growth and milk production.

DH and I fair near wet our pants with cheap gags about how he could take a greater role in the night feeds "if he really wanted to"

TBF I think there are quite a few men who would like to be pregnant, give birth, breastfeed.

They know it's not their thing though, because biologiy, and it doesn't make them women.

Male driven science tampering in matters relating to pregnancy, birth and feeding has freqeuntly been an unmitigated disaster, the misogyny inherent underplays the role of the women. Babies in bags? Yes why not, a womb is just a bag, the small matter of it being an integral part of the woman's body, and the baby being completely integrated into all her other functions, being able to hear her, feel her heartbeat, that's irrelevant. Formula milk? Well science is awesome and women are a bit rubbish, clearly the men in white coats will easily be able to create something superior, it's just milk after all. And look how that ended up.

As I say I think a lot of it is a desire - subconscious usually - from men, to remove women from this process. Because they need us now, and they don't like it. Womb envy. Is a thing. The idea of penis envy was a standard patriarchal reversal.

So the transwoman had a female partner who gave birth to the baby yet lots of effort was made to ensure the transwoman could breastfeed??? What about the mother? Surely it would have been much easier and more beneficial to the baby for her to have done so?

Applauds UpABitLate.

Co-dependant hands over wellbeing of newborn to narcissistic male in the "Mother Load" of narcissistic supply, "Non-Push" present.

Gross.

How did this get ethical approval?
I also suspect this will get hearty approval from the sorts of people who would be shocked and appalled at a woman breastfeeding a toddler.

They said "partner" maybe the partner is a trans man and didn't want to.

Maybe the partner was a woman who didn't want to.

Maybe the TIM persuaded / demanded that they be the one to do it to make up for not being able to be pg / give birth. To "share" the mothering stuff.

Who knows - we can't assume the mother wanted to though. But, it's really not the point.

It's interesting, men say we have "taken" their roles - mainly around work and power where in many parts of the world we have removed barriers banning us from certain jobs, positions, etc

Then this happens and they try to take ours - many women feel a very deep sense of wrongness around this. But they say oh equality, you got what you wanted, why shouldn't we have this? And the answer is hard to articulate, but it's about our basic most core status - we are female animals, mammals, we give birth and nurture our young. That is something that has been happening for millions of years and the consequences of giving that ability to men are ??? both for women and for the children that result. Maybe it will be fine. Maybe it won't. History tells us it won't. It's really not the same sort of thing as e.g. driving a crane.

I am starting to feel like I'm in an episode of Black Mirror, this is starting to be so horribly wrong it just feels like madness. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Putting a baby in danger to validate this? Really...

Did they verify that the man was actually the producer of the milk, and not the birth mother?
Did they test the milk for drug concentrations?
Did they verify somehow that the birth mother didn't in fact produce all the milk and this narcissist man fraudulently claimed it was him?

Course they didn't.
I mean, if you intended to make such a striking world-first claim I'm sure you'd have iron clad proof that it wasn't all a huge fraud? No?

But I'm sure this is in no way a reflection on the validity of the claims.

The whole thing is steeped in an ages old dismissal of women's bodies.

Anything a woman can do, a man can do better artifically.

Is the bottom line. And it's not true. Not when it comes to this stuff.

And yet, they still push for artifical wombs and so on. Why? Because men have always hated that we hold this ability and they can't fully control it let alone have it for themselves.

Look at the TIM claims that they are like women but better, women +++

That they are better all round at womanigng - usually what womaning involves is being sexually appealling to men. The language that is used to talk about women's sexual organs is grotesque "dried up crusted cunts" I read today. This is just the same misogyny as it's always been. The easy public acceptance and engagement / money from the drug companies to make it happen makes it more of a threat though.